Last Modified: 2005-07-27
Jul 05 | Submit draft documenting interoperability issues for use in progressing RFCs to Draft Standard. | |
Sep 05 | Submit iCalendar bis draft 00, with formatting changes from RFC2445. | |
Sep 05 | Submit iTIP bis draft 00 | |
Sep 05 | Submit iMIP bis draft 00 | |
Oct 05 | Submit revised interoperability issues draft version based on WG discussion. | |
Dec 05 | WG decision on what document(s) require transition mechanisms and hopefully rough idea what these will look like (and add new goals if needed) | |
Mar 06 | WG last call on interoperability issues draft. | |
May 06 | Submit interoperability issues document to IESG for Informational RFC. | |
May 06 | Submit version of iCalendar bis draft that addresses known interoperability issues from interop events. | |
Jun 06 | Submit versions of iTIP and iMIP that address known interoprability issues. | |
Jul 06 | Submit version of iCalendar draft that addresses WG open discussions. | |
Sep 06 | Submit version of iCalendar draft ready for WG last call. | |
Nov 06 | Complete WG last call of iCalendar and submit new draft. | |
Nov 06 | Submit versions of iTIP and iMIP ready for last call. | |
Jan 07 | Submit iCalendar (bis) to IESG for Draft Standard. | |
Jan 07 | Complete WG last call of iTIP | |
Feb 07 | Complete WG last call of iMIP | |
Mar 07 | Submit iTIP to IESG for Draft Standard. | |
Apr 07 | Submit iMIP to IESG for Draft Standard. |
- agenda bashing - overview - http://ietf.webdav.org/calsify - charter review - document interoperability and usage issues - revise calendaring and scheduling for advancing to draft - work on transition effort - announcements - various suspects^Wauthors - PROTO is in effect - warning: moving to draft may leave products behind - ...but advanced features (by-second occurance) may be dropped - Pete: question on process of moving to draft - What does "independent" mean? - Ted: codebases are independently developed - ...but language in std should be changed to reflect outside agreements - Lear: if the feature velocity is high, whether negative or positive, then another round at proposed may be in order - calDAV not in scope - planned US timezone change - 2445bis strategy - simplify and *tighten* - a plea for implementors to keep up with drafts - interop data - calconnect work (recurrences, timezones) - why was stuff left out of implementations - rescheduling of overlapping entries varied wildly - unbounded rules - ackward rules - e.g. "30st of each month" What about Feb? - timezones - support for finite sets on servers - arbitrary zones not realistic - use case data (Jeff) - (list of stuff that has few implementations) - Patrick Fahlstrom: need abstraction layer between events and timezones, e.g., a 'location' that could move. Urge group to step back and figure how to handle this - discussion of example - Chris Newman: Olson DB uses locations for names - Lear: sufficiently normative? - Chris Newman: ain't nothing better - Lear: but how to map from name to zone data? - Chris Newman: use the database - Pete Resnick: UN may have better now? <silence> - Ted Hardie: think hard about two uses: - stuff involving humans - stuff that is scheduled sans humans - Nathaniel: zone data change; an IANA registry can fix that - Rowan: hard to stuff this in IANA - Randy Presuhn: language tag registry has similar problems, you have to tag entries with dates, e.g. - Patrick: this confirms need to abstract timezone - Corby: client had TZ data, converted all to UTC+/-NNNN - <various examples of pain pain pain> - Bob Morgan: use cases critical to resolve pain - Doug Royer's draft to be made managable by IANA - political and process issues are complicated - Bernard: Oracle implementation looks up stuff - Keith: just listing issues may be valuable - Patrick: need special effort for TZ handling? - Chris: perfect is impossible; Good Enough must be sufficient; QoI issue - Pete: willing to look into political issue (UN) - Ted: protocol service of interest? - Lisa: interop issues are *NOT* just about TZ |